Archive for the ‘Freedom’ Category

They dressed up like native americans and then boarded a ship in Boston Harbor to have the biggest tea party of all time. Dumping the tea that they were being taxed for into Boston Harbor and thus they had there party. Among those in this elite group were men like John Adams. These men had a lot to loose for this demonstration against the King of England. What do you think have we lost the significants of this in modern America? Are we now so wrapped up in being dutiful Americans that we no longer are willing to stand up and be counted? Every generation must do its time in standing up for liberty. Well our time is now, stand up and be counted but do with as much respect as you can master.

Actor Kirk Cameron is finding himself at the center of a firestorm because of his beliefs. Since his conversion to Christianity from atheism 20 years ago, Cameron has become increasingly outspoken concerning his faith in recent years. Now, in this purported “Year of Darwin,” the 38-year-old actor has become active in countering…more

The City Council of Tehachapi, California has become another victim of bullying by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

In keeping with their customary practice, the Tehachapi city council invited local clergy to open up its meetings with prayer. But the Freedom from Religion Foundation has threatened to sue because some prayers have been offered in Jesus’ name.

This bullying tactic is regularly used to intimidate small cities into eliminating all signs of religious expression because of the high cost of defending their rights.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is Constitutional to begin meetings with prayer. But to avoid a costly battle, the Tehachapi council decided they would say the Pledge of Allegiance instead.

TAKE ACTION:

Contact the Tehachapi City Council today and encourage them to stand up for their Constitutional rights! Tell them to pray and say the pledge!

I just read the report on the news that in Obama’s speech at Notre Dame he called for a “fair minded” abortion debate. Well I am giving him MY response. Please read the news report, then after it read my response to Obama.

SOUTH BEND, Indiana (Reuters) – President Barack Obama urged both sides in the abortion debate on Sunday to pursue a “fair-minded” discussion as he sought to quell a firestorm over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame, a premier U.S. Catholic university.

Notre Dame’s decision to confer an honorary degree on Obama and invite him to be the keynote speaker for the commencement sparked petitions and several days of protests. Some students vowed to boycott the commencement.

Critics who said Obama’s support for abortion rights violated Catholic Church doctrine had sought to have the invitation rescinded but the university refused.

Interrupted at times by hecklers, Obama said he recognized the strong emotions stirred up by the abortion debate but he urged the two sides to try to find common ground, such as preventing unintended pregnancies.

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away,” Obama said. “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

“Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term,” Obama told the crowd of 12,000 at a huge athletic facility.

His appearance was mostly warmly welcomed by the crowd, which gave him several standing ovations.

SOME HECKLERS

But at a few points during the speech, he was interrupted by hecklers, including one who shouted, “Abortion is murder.” That heckler was booed by the audience.

Some graduates displayed a print of a cross symbol and two baby feet on their caps while others wore caps that said “Viva Obama.”

Outside the commencement, hundreds of protesters gathered and carried signs that said “Notre Dame supports violence” and “Thou shall not kill.”

At least 22 protesters were arrested after they walked past a piece of yellow police tape they had been told not to cross, according to police.

Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of the landmark Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion, was among the first protesters arrested at Notre Dame. A Catholic convert, McCorvey is now active in the anti-abortion.

Tony Ughetti, of Spring, Texas, said he watched as McCorvey asked the officers, “How do I get arrested?”

Ughetti said that in response to the Notre Dame decision to invite Obama, he got rid of books, T-shirts and other Notre Dame memorabilia in his home.

“We disposed of over 40 Notre Dame items from our house…I wanted to burn them but my wife took them to Goodwill (charity). Our house is now Notre Dame-free,” he said.

A smaller group of those outside were there in support of Obama’s visit. Carrying a sign reading “Welcome President Obama,” Bill Dillon, of South Bend, said he thought Obama was being treated unfairly.

“I don’t think they should call Obama a murderer,” said Dillon, a 1951 graduate in aeronautical engineering.

Catholics are the largest single denomination in the United States, making up nearly a quarter of the population. More than half of the adult population is Protestant but that is split among many denominations.

Many Catholics agreed with the university’s decision to invite Obama to speak at the commencement, according to a poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Fifty percent of those in the poll agreed with the university’s invitation to Obama while 28 percent opposed it. The rest were undecided or had no opinion.

Dear President Obama,

You asked for a fair minded Debate on the issue of abortion. Well let me explain my opinion on this matter, which you should also really come to understand is probably also the position of close to half the voting population of the United states.

I received a letter from one of your fellow liberal thinkers a while ago, and I explained the viewpoint of myself, and many others in this country, to him in a simple letter back to him. Perhaps this simple, straight forward explanation is one that you can understand.

One thing I have noticed dramatically since you have come to power, you seem to have forgotten that nearly half of the country does not agree with you on so many things, yet you want to ram down our throats every far far left item from the liberal agenda all at one time.

Before I ask my question I wish to say beforehand, I’m not asking this out of spite or any sort of hateful thoughts. I’m just curious about your stance on abortion, why are you so set in your ways against it when abortion can both control human population (and we are in a population crisis) and has the purposefully hidden consenquinse of lowering crime. but ill not get into that argument, for it isn’t proper conversation.

Please forgive my horrable writing, and please don’t think me a fool for asking. Maybe we can have a civil discusion as time progresses, but for now ill say fare well and thank you for replying.

Jonathan Mxxxxxx

Now President Obama, here is my response. I hope you will read it carefully, and possible try to grasp the simple principles involved here.

Dear Jonathan,

Why am I so against abortion? I am against it because it is murder of an innocent human life, plain and simple.

As for controlling the population and crime, you sound pretty selfish if you can present an argument for destroying the weakest of the human race to better the lives of the others, i.e., yourself.

We could just as easily control population and crime by killing adults, I mean if you follow this argument why place limitations?

Why not kill off all the old people as well. After all they do not produce for society but take from it.

We could also kill the ill and infirm since they are a constant drain on our resources.

We could kill the people with lower IQ’s, I mean only the intelligent should benefit from living right?

Oh, then we must also most definitely kill those who look different or think different. I mean, where would we be if people were not like you, or disagreed with you, and these people were allowed to keep on breathing.

Where do you draw the line??

Once the value of life is removed, the only limitations are those placed by those in control.

A man named Hitler went this route. His reasoning was to control what he saw as overpopulation by those who were detrimental to his view of society.

As for discussion, there is none. I am absolute in my values of innocent life, and there is no argument you or anyone else out there will ever be able to bring to me that will sway my opinion on this.

Especially since almost every single person out there who supports the so-called “Choice” of a woman to kill their children are some of the most self-centered selfish people in our day and age.

They believe in the “do it if it feels good and go on living without any consequence” mentality.

I believe in moral absolutes. Some things are unbending, unchanging. This does not matter whether you agree or disagree it is just simple fact.

Some times there is NO SHADE of GREY, just simple black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. This is one of those things.

Alain

One last thing President Obama, and I hope you really take this to heart. You have so many “changes” on your plate right now, and you have half of the country soundly against you on almost all of these. Here is one simple thought, to HELP you further your many agendas.

Give us THIS ONE.

Outlaw abortion in our great nation. Flat and Simple.

I soundly believe that if you grant us this, the end of what we see as the incoherent slaughter of our nations young, you will find a true place in history and probably much less resistance to so many of your other radical ideas and “Changes” that you are trying to implement.

Think on this, and thank you for taking the time to listen to this requested response to a “fair minded” abortion debate.

Hate Crime law HR-1913 may offer federal protection to 30 different “sexual orientations.” Yet, as alarming as this is, the problem with hate-crime laws doesn’t lie in the details. It lies in the laws themselves. In another example of creating specially-protected classes of people, the government is poised to offer homosexuals and other groups defined by sexual behavior protected status under federal hate-crime law. And the scope of the bill is great, encompassing a whole host of sexual perversions. Standard Newswire provides the following information:

. . . the House Judiciary Committee refused to exclude pedophiles from the bill’s protection. The Committee also refused to include veterans. Moreover, the bill does not include the elderly. H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia. The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such [a] disorder or fetish.

As if this isn’t bad enough, many fear that the bill could also be used to stifle free speech. CBNnews.com addresses this, writing that Texas congressman and former judge Louie Gohmert suggested that a hate-crime law “would add nothing but punishment for pastors who preach biblically held beliefs against homosexuality." ‘It would not take too many arrests to have an extraordinary chilling affect [sic] on some religious teachings with regard to sexual immorality,’ Gohmert claimed.” This isn’t paranoia, as the pink guillotine has already used similar laws overseas to persecute people uttering unfashionable beliefs. For instance, Ake Green, a Swedish pastor imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon. And then there was Bill Whatcott, a Christian who was fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for criticizing homosexuality, just to mention a couple of cases. Yet, whatever the details, it’s a mistake to become so immersed in them that we miss the big picture. Because the problem with hate-crime laws lies not in who is protected, who is punished and what the consequences are. It lies with the laws themselves. Hate-crime laws punish thoughts and words. Consider this example: two crimes are committed, and they are identical in terms of the action undertaken. But they are prosecuted very differently. The perpetrator of the first crime is deemed to have been motivated by a politically-correct sin, greed, and receives five years in prison. The criminal hands in the second crime, however, are said to have been animated by “hate” – as defined by oh-so loving social engineers – thus, the perpetrator is sent away for 15 years. Now, we can conclude that the act itself warranted five years prison, as that is what was handed down when only the act was considered. So, we have to ask, what were the extra 10 years given to Mr. Hate for? Could they perhaps be for the thoughts expressed through the act? This brings us back to free-speech concerns. Whether or not HR-1913 itself would be used to stifle politically-incorrect criticism, there is no doubt that hate-crime laws in general are a transitional phase on the road to hate-speech laws. To illustrate why, consider how it is that a criminal act is deemed a hate crime. It is thus labeled when the perpetrator expresses displeasure with a group his victim is identified with during the commission of the act. But think about it: if the government can criminalize the expression of certain beliefs within one context, it is that much closer to criminalizing them within any context. And, by and large, this is the goal of hate-crime law proponents. If they would deny this, I would issue the following challenge: if eliminating the violence in question really is your goal, let’s just increase the penalties for a given act to hate-crime levels regardless of the motivation. In other words, if you want “hate-crime” murderers to receive an extra 15 years, it can easily be accomplished by thus punishing all murderers. And if that level of punishment is needed to deter the behavior, doesn’t it make sense to apply it across-the-board? (I should mention an interesting contradiction here. Liberals have been scoffing at punishment for decades, lobbying against spanking and harsh sentences; they’ve called such things cruel and have often implied that they don’t even work. Yet, isn’t it funny that when it’s their emotional ox being gored, they suddenly believe harsh punishment is warranted and that its effectiveness is a given?) But leftists won’t do this for a simple reason: they want to make a statement about the expression of certain ideas. Thus, they want individuals acting upon those ideas singled out for draconian punishment. And they can’t even defend their aims by likening them to broadcast indecency prohibitions. After all, it isn’t just group-specific epithets uttered during a crime that would bring hate-crime charges but anything relating a negative opinion about the group in question. In other words, they will punish not just mindless profanity, not just style, but also substance. At the end of the day, hate-crime laws are yet another example of invidious leftist double standards. That is to say, if someone’s loved one is murdered because of good old-fashioned greed, will you be willing to look him in the eye and explain why it’s just that the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist relative to a politically-incorrect, "hateful" killer? If not, you have no business supporting hate-crime laws.

How long will it take for America to wake up and realize Keynesian economics (government-induced stimulation of the economy) doesn’t work?
First the bad news: Judging by past history, the restoration of common sense in government could take as long as 2400 years.
That’s how long it took medical science to abolish bloodletting, an intended cure for infectious diseases, which was first practiced in about the fifth century BC and persisted until the mid-1800s.
The theory was that diseases were caused by an imbalance in the “humors” (bodily fluids), but the effects were not beneficial. Not only did the lancet introduce infectious germs but the loss of blood weakened the patient, often leading to death. Yet doctors didn’t base their methods on results.
Human behavior is flawed. Our thinking is easily manipulated by the expectations of perceived authorities.
Even though millions of people witnessed the results of bloodletting, not enough noticed the lack of efficacy to bring about its abolition. I call this blindness the “respect effect.” Those who doubted the efficacy of bloodletting would never have dared say so because they would have been criticizing an untouchable group.
Europe and most of Asia had gone through a long feudal period where society was divided into the rich landlords and the serfs, their de facto slaves. The latter had no right to contest the wisdom of the former.
Worse, most of the doctors had had formal training, often at a respected university and were thus seen as “educated.” The scientific method, though articulated in the fifth century, was not commonly used in medicine. Thus the practice persisted until recent times. In the novel Fathers and Sons, for example, set in the mid-1800s, Turgenev mentions a doctor whose kitbag contains lances.
Apparently, medical training for physicians consisted simply of passing on the “wisdom” of the older professors and doctors to the students, who were not supposed to question them. Thus, a dangerous superstition gripped academe, while largely sparing the commoners.
Indeed, in those 2400 odd years during which doctors practicing bloodletting failed to cure their patients, while enjoying the full prestige of professional legitimacy, the commoners, who couldn’t afford doctors, discovered, thanks to the mother of invention, countless herbal and home cures for all sorts of human and animal illnesses, cures that were infinitely more effective precisely because they had been proven, through trial and error, to work and because the intelligentsia weren’t there to interfere.
Thus, for millenia “doctors” were overpaid quacks while the common man was far advanced compared to such practitioners.
It wasn’t until the 19th century that the intellectual elites discovered, using the common man’s time-tested techniques, that the unfounded assumptions about bloodletting were false.
Now what I have said about medical science applies in kind to economic science.
The principle of supply and demand had always been widely accepted by all social classes, whether or not they could articulate it. After all, the free-market system gave positive results, particularly once the industrial revolution was in place.
No one could deny it.
But a new superstition was about to grip academe.
In the 19th century, as physicians were abandoning bloodletting, a handful of intellectuals reverted to the old elitist ways, founding a new system based on nothing but unproven assumptions. Though couched in abstruse and high sounding prose, Das Kapital is nothing but a collection of random, loosely connected observations and theories. Vladimir Lenin foisted this so-called system on his country and after almost 70 years, his successors turned in the final results: abject failure.
By contrast, America turned in respectable test results, proving the efficacy of free market principles.
Conclusion: the more government, the worse the results. The less government, the better the results.
But before that, John Maynard Keynes had thrown his weight toward more government and had become the intellectual mentor of FDR, who implemented Keynesian economics. Keynes once suggested that if the government paid men to dig ditches and fill them back up again, that would stimulate the economy.
FDR adopted this idea of experimental government intervention, paying farmers to kill piglets in an effort to increase farm prices. It brought up meat prices but it didn’t help people buy meat.
It is now recognized that FDR, far from “getting us out of the Depression,” actually prolonged it<http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx&gt; by about seven years.
Yet FDR was praised as a “genius” by the media and the intellectual elite.
Why?
For the same reason that physicians for years had resorted to bloodletting: the respect effect.
Academe never seriously questioned FDR’s “genius.” Having graduated from Harvard and Columbia, he was one of their own. Their writings reflect that misguided respect, which was passed on to today’s Democrats and Obama, who has resumed economic bloodletting, calling it “stimulus.” It will bleed our children and grandchildren. Yet regardless of the economic ills of interminable debt, the elite dutifully extol his “genius.”
But here’s the good news: Unlike FDR, Obama did not win by a landslide. Nor, judging by our coast-to-coast tea parties, does he enjoy anywhere near the popularity or trust that FDR commanded for four terms.
There are good reasons for this:

In FDR’s day, the Soviet experiment was just getting started. Today, the world’s most visible socialist states have failed spectacularly.

There was no significant conservative/libertarian movement in FDR’s day. Today, such organizations flourish.

Today, thanks in large part to the Internet, the hot issues of taxation and spending are spotlighted despite efforts to obfuscate.

FDR supported national defense. Obama has all but ignored the military and apologizes to our enemies.

The honeymoon is over, and the scientific method, applied to Obamanomics, will melt the Keynesian fantasies like snow in a spring thaw.

Donald Hank

is a former language teacher, currently operating a technical translation agency in Wrightsville, PA. A former language teacher, he holds an undergraduate degree in French and German from Millersville State University (PA), a Master’s degree in Russian language and literature from Kutztown State College (also in PA), has studied Chinese for 3 years in Taiwan at the Mandarin Training Center, and is self-taught in other languages, having logged a total of 8 years abroad in total immersion situations. He is also the founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, a volunteer organization that provides Christian counseling for non-custodial parents.